The study of the experience of building a solidary society at the regional, municipal and corporate levels allowed us to come to the following conclusions. In the conditions of the undeveloped state of civil society and the individualistic orientation of citizens, there is a risk of inadequate perception of the social situation. Citizens still have a consistently low level of trust in information coming from government agencies.
In the public opinion of broad sections of the population, either paternalistic sentiments (“all problems should be solved by the state”) or detached indifference (“nothing depends on us”) continue to prevail. Political communications of regional authorities are of the nature of a “situational response” to citizens’ appeals; There is no necessary monitoring of the state of civil society.
The risk situation that arises in the process of forming a solidary society is understood as a situation that is accompanied by three conditions: the presence of uncertainty; the need to choose an alternative; inability to assess the effectiveness of the chosen strategy.
Risk of inadequate information and analytical support
due to several reasons. Firstly, the lack of a social diagnostic system, which results in incompleteness and unreliability of the initial information. Secondly, imperfection
applied information technologies. Thirdly, the inability of specialists to work with information.
Risk of insufficient public support for programs. Level
This risk is quite high due to the low level of public trust in the government and the projects it initiates. Public opinion polls
residents of the Ulyanovsk region show that, with the exception of
Governor of the region, the level of trust in practically all government structures remains low.
Electoral behavior as a form of political participation
represents the activities of citizens during election campaigns, participation in elections and making a political decision when voting for a specific candidate or political party. Electoral activity of the population of the Ulyanovsk region is falling, which corresponds to all-Russian trends. In the mid-2000s. 89% of the population participated in the elections; at the end of the first decade, 33% of the population took part in the elections.
In order to have an idea of the dynamics, trends, prospects of a solidary society at the regional and municipal level, it is necessary:
Monitor quantitative indicators of socio-political participation of various layers and social groups of the population, especially student youth;
Study the motivation and value orientations of various social groups and strata;
Explore the level of interest and competence
citizens in discussing various projects and decisions;
Identify the reaction of regional and municipal authorities to public opinion, proposals and wishes of the population;
Identify various forms of socio-political participation of the population: organized and spontaneous, legal and illegal, typical and atypical, authorized and unauthorized.
The region's intelligentsia has significant cultural and professional resources, however, currently, due to the unstable economic situation and unclear authority in society, it is at risk of being disunited to the level
professional communities. Intellectuals are currently being more actively replenished from the technical intelligentsia, and less actively from the humanities. This is a danger for the regional
communities: technical intellectuals are not inherently responsible for the situation in the region; only the intelligentsia in the traditional sense can become the core of sociocultural
public of the region and maintain the social capital of the region.
Forms of solidarity between public organizations,
citizens, state authorities and local self-government in solving problems in specific areas - education and
science, sustainability of industrial enterprises, formation of youth values: legislative solidarity; coordination
efforts to develop programs and projects to solve problems; joint activities of public organizations and citizens in the field of education; socio-political solidarity.
The modernization of Russian society, announced at the end of the first
decades of the 21st century, must be supported “from below” - through mastering the minds of the most prepared part of society and further through the formation of a new type of thinking in broad groups of the population. All modernizations of a socio-economic nature that took place in Russia in previous periods were carried out “from above”, beginning and ending with “shock” reforms in economics and politics. The strategic objectives of the current stage for implementation require the joint efforts of all age, professional, and political subjects in the regional space.
Dear brothers and sisters!
Today we brought to the discussion of the Council a very deep and important topic: “Russia is a country-civilization. Solidarity society and the future of the Russian people.” Let me say from the very beginning that Russia should be understood as a cultural multinational entity in very specific historical and geographical dimensions, which is associated with Ancient Russia. In a sense, Russia is synonymous with Rus'. Today we have a different geopolitical reality: independent states have arisen in the vastness of historical Russia, many of which are also the heirs of Rus'. Therefore, when I talk about Russia, I always mean this great civilizational space. But since today during the Council we will consider many issues in relation to the Russian Federation, then by Russia we will mean first of all the Russian Federation - with its problems, hopes, and outlook on the future.
Essentially, the formulation itself poses three closely related tasks. First: to comprehend Russia’s place in the fate of humanity. Second: to propose a harmonious form of social order. And third: if possible, give a forecast for tomorrow, look into the future. Each of these fundamental tasks could become a reason for a separate detailed discussion, but it is clear that they cannot be considered in isolation from one another.
Reflecting on these tasks, let me turn to the 20 years of experience that we have accumulated within the framework of the World Russian People's Council. Every Christian in his life asks, or at least should ask, “What, Lord, do you command me to do in life? What is Your plan for me and my life? But the same question can be asked about human communities: for example, what is God’s plan for Russia? What does God command us, as heirs, successors of the united Holy Rus' and the traditions of the Russian world, to accomplish in the time that He has given us? Is Russia a special, unique, independent civilization, equal in size to the West, India or China? Twelve years ago, in 2001, at the VI Council, which was held under the title “Russia: Faith and Civilization. Dialogue of Epochs”, we have already addressed this issue. In our opinion, the answer can only be yes. Hardly any of the people seriously interested in the philosophy of history can raise doubts about this.
Just listing the outstanding names of Russian and foreign researchers who recognized Russia as an independent, distinctive society looks impressive. This list will include very different people - such as Nikolai Danilevsky, Arnold Toynbee, Oswald Spengler. But isn’t the emergence of Russian religious philosophy at the beginning of the twentieth century - a bright, original trend in the humanities - proof of the original creative beginning of our civilization, capable of offering its own view of the world, saying its word to a person? It is no coincidence that today's thinkers and politicians turn to the wisdom of those who formed the body of this remarkable religious philosophy of the late 19th and 20th centuries.
Of course, even more compelling arguments than the philosophical works and theoretical calculations of historians are real deeds, that is, the historical experience of Russia, its outstanding achievements in culture and technology, its ability to give a unique national response to the challenges of the time, its unique role at turning points in human history. stories.
Therefore, to the question whether Russia is an independent civilization in the family of the largest civilizations on the planet, we must give an affirmative answer. Yes, Russia is a country-civilization, with its own set of values, its own patterns of social development, its own model of society and state, its own system of historical and spiritual coordinates.
However, at the VI World Russian People's Council, I posed this question differently: can we still be considered a great civilization, have we retained this right? After all, our financial resources are many times smaller than the financial resources of the West, and our demographic potential is many times inferior to the potential of India or China.
This question remains relevant today. Although over the past decade and a half there have been positive changes in Russia, in particular in the economy and demography, they are not yet entirely convincing for those of our compatriots who have lost or are losing faith in the creative forces of their country and their people. And here we enter a semantic space where completely different arguments operate than the size of accumulated material wealth and the size of the human masses.
The value of any civilization is not in how many billions of dollars its total product is valued for the past year, and not in how many adherents it has today. The value of any civilization lies in what it brings to humanity. And every civilization faces the question: is it capable of reflecting in thoughts, feelings, words and deeds that enduring truth that matters in eternity?
Russia as a country-civilization has something to offer the world. This is our experience in building fair and peaceful interethnic relations. There were no master peoples and slave peoples in Rus'. Russia has never been a prison of nations; there were no first- and second-class nations here. Is this not where the deep popular resistance to fascism lies, which proposed a completely different concept of interethnic relations? But, in addition, we as a civilization have a special experience of multipolar and multi-structured existence. We have a tradition of self-restraint, so important in an environment of impending resource shortages and an acute environmental crisis. This is a concept of moral values that does not allow devaluing the institution of family and destroying the life guidelines of the individual, as well as God-defined relationships between men and women.
A special national idea that has permeated our history and culture for many centuries is the idea of human solidarity. Since the time of the Baptism of Rus', the Savior’s words that “greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13), like a tuning fork, attuned the thoughts and feelings of our ancestors to serving the gospel moral ideal. Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin, a representative of the very philosophy that I spoke about above, defined the state exclusively through the concept of solidarity, calling it “an organized unity of spiritually solidary people.” This model of human relations goes back to the image of the Church as a body, which we find in the letters of the holy Apostle Paul: “There are many members, but one body. The eye cannot tell the hand: I don’t need you; or also head to feet: I don’t need you. On the contrary, the members of the body that seem weaker are much more necessary, and those that seem to us to be less noble in the body, we take more care of those... But God proportioned the body, instilling greater care for the less perfect, so that there would be no division in the body, and all members would be equal. looked after one another” (1 Cor. 12:20–25). The apostle’s words reveal God’s plan for man and any human community: we are all called to fraternal cooperation and care for each other.
However, in the modern world, a different model of social structure predominates - the conflict model. It is based on a system of permanent confrontations, competition and struggle, supposedly inevitable and necessary for progress. Our ideal, on the contrary, is a solidary society, a society of social symphony, where different strata and groups, different peoples and religious communities, different participants in political and economic processes are not competitors fighting each other, but co-workers. And competition in such a solidary society is encouraged as competition, but not as a struggle for survival. Saint Sergius of Radonezh teaches us “to overcome the hateful discord of this world by looking at the Holy Trinity.” The basis for living together and acting together is the foundation of common, basic values, including those that the XV World Russian People's Council tried to formulate in 2011.
The desire for solidarity determines the entire historical path of Russia, linking together different eras. Solidarity values permeate the entire space of national culture. Therefore, our project for the future should be a solidary society as an alternative to a society of permanent conflict.
When we talk about Russia as a special civilization, we are not just stating a fact, but we are aware of our historical calling, formulating a task for the future for ourselves and our descendants. Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky, already mentioned by me, noted: in order for “a civilization characteristic of a distinctive cultural-historical type to emerge and develop, it is necessary that the peoples belonging to it enjoy political independence.” However, today, in the 21st century, political sovereignty alone is clearly not enough to protect civilizational boundaries and achieve an adequate role for a particular civilization in the world.
In the final document of the XVI World Russian People's Council, held on the topic “Frontiers of history - frontiers of Russia”, it was noted that today it is appropriate to talk not only about the sovereignty of state borders, but also about the sovereignty of the humanitarian space - the space of meanings, spiritual symbols, socio-cultural development . Against this background, the creation of our own tools of knowledge - sociological, political science, cultural studies - becomes a task of enormous importance. That is why the World Russian People's Council can and should become an intellectual center, gathering around itself people capable of setting and solving such problems.
Another, and perhaps the highest level of establishing the sovereignty of Russia as a unique country-civilization is spiritual sovereignty. It is based on the values shared by the moral majority of our society. “Keep your heart with all your guard, for from it are the springs of life” (Prov. 4:23), says the Word of God, and this is true both for an individual and for an entire nation. More than once in the history of Russia, the country rose from ruins thanks to the fact that people maintained faith and awareness of their duty to God, to each other and to descendants. But neither economics, nor science, nor defense, nor culture are possible where people have lost the motivation to serve each other, have lost the consciousness of undeniable obligations towards the society in which they live. A society where people lose the motivation to interact with each other disintegrates into atoms, which is largely facilitated by the exaggerated idea of individualism, which is truly a challenge and antipode to the idea of a solidary society. At the same time, a solidary society should never suppress individuality, because it is only strong through the interaction of free people.
Of course, people of different views and beliefs do not always understand social values in the same way. There are shades and nuances, there is space for discussion, for dialogue. However, no dialogue is possible with those who grossly belittle, ridicule, trample these values, who destroy interethnic and interreligious peace. Today, the denial of values has become one of the most dangerous manifestations of the forces of spiritual destruction. In this situation, the protection of values is the protection of our spiritual sovereignty. Those who, in their obsession with pride and selfishness, elevate themselves above society, destroying its values, must receive a very clear answer, consonant with the inner voice of the majority of our people - an intellectual, volitional, spiritual, active answer.
Saint Nicholas of Serbia testifies: “If we look back at the life of the Russian people from Holy Prince Vladimir to the present day, we will see that he followed the path to which the spirit and example of his baptizer led him.” These words are not just a metaphor. National basic values, which, in particular, were discussed at the XV World Russian People's Council, are deeply rooted in the national character of the Russian people. Formed over the centuries under the influence of Orthodox Christianity, this character is still a socio-psychological dominant, a guarantee of peace and harmony in our society.
Very often, those who deny our shrines and values transfer their feelings to the Russian people, who are the main creator of our civilization, the bearer of its ideals. These forces seem to be trying to support everything that can weaken him, divide him, and disorient him ideologically and morally. It seems that these people fear more than anything else the real revival of Russian civilization, a revival based on faith combined with life, with socially significant action.
Now, at the World Russian People's Council, we must say clearly and unequivocally: the symphony of ethnic groups, which gives our civilization a unique appearance, is impossible without the participation of Russians in it. The dialogue of peoples, designed to bring harmony to interethnic relations, will not achieve its goal without the presence of Russian voices and the Russian factor in it. I believe that the Council is a sufficiently mature and influential organization to represent the Russian people on platforms for interethnic discussions.
Millions of Russian people who value their identity should feel that their aspirations are receiving a lively response, including at the everyday level, including at the level of dialogue with the authorities, which should be the voice of the people's soul, the fulfiller of their hopes, expectations, worldviews preferences.
Let's admit the obvious: the developed self-awareness and unity of the Russian people is the unshakable foundation of the integrity of Russia and the unity of our multi-ethnic civilization. In turn, ignoring the interests of the Russian people and ousting the Russian issue from the public sphere leads to an avalanche-like growth of marginal and aggressive manifestations.
The prospect of alienation of Russians and, above all, Russian youth, from the state, government structures, and business management can be very dangerous. In the near future, this may become the largest factor of instability, threatening the fundamental foundations of our civilization. The clashes that recently occurred in the Moscow microdistrict of Biryulyovo show that the deafness of those in power to the demands of the people, the reluctance to seek joint solutions to the problems of excessive migration and related crime, as well as the sometimes defiant behavior of visitors, are already bringing the situation to a critical point. If the position of the Russian majority continues to be ignored, the only winners will be the destroyers of Russia, provocateurs on both sides, who never give up attempts to pit ethnic groups and religions against each other.
We reject the position of those who believe that Russia should be a country only and exclusively for Russians. But we will also never agree with those who want to see it as “Russia without Russians,” deprived of a national and religious face, and having lost a sense of solidarity and unity. Such a scenario is fraught with catastrophic consequences not only for our state, but also for the whole world.
At the same time, I would like to emphasize that not a single person belonging to another nation in Russia should be limited in their rights and opportunities. One of the indispensable conditions for interethnic harmony should be, firstly, the exercise of the right of the peoples of our country to ethnocultural development, in which the state-forming Russian people cannot be excluded from the process. And secondly, the formation of a multinational civil and civilizational community, awareness by all people belonging to different ethnic groups and peoples of their belonging to a single society, to a single country, so that everyone can be proud of being a citizen of a free Russia.
We know: the spiritual and value resources that have been entrusted to our people and the entire family of peoples of Russia have more than once determined the path of humanity at decisive historical crossroads, at pivotal moments in time. So it was before, so it should be in the future. Therefore, the most important task of the World Russian People's Council, the common task for all of us gathered here, is to preserve and increase this civilizational heritage that we possess today, passing it on to the generations that succeed us. Thank you for attention.
In the modern world, the idea of an atomized society based on the competition of individuals and corporations, including the competition of the main economic and political cells (enterprises and parties), has become prevalent. However, a society based on confrontation contradicts the traditional values of almost all human cultures, is rejected by most people and does not correspond to their social ideals. Moreover, a society of unlimited competition does not meet the realities of the very near future, when the paradigm of continuous growth will inevitably collide with the limited resources of the planet.
As an alternative to a competitive society in the twentieth century, a totalitarian society was proposed, strictly hierarchical and controlled from a single center. But this alternative turned out to be too clumsy. A totalitarian society turned out to be unable to mobilize the private initiatives of its members; on the contrary, it blocked them. Its coordination center failed to cope with the increasing number of controlled objects, and was unable to ensure a sufficiently rapid social evolution to meet the challenges of the time.
Taking into account the spiritual and social experience of the Russian past, as well as the risks and challenges experienced by humanity, we propose a project of a solidary society as a society of the future, which we will begin to build in our country, calling on other peoples to follow our example.
The historical path of humanity over the past centuries allows us to conclude that the global trend is an increase in the degree of freedom of the human person, the growth of human dignity, economic and legal independence, and the ability of each person to influence management processes. Attempts by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes to resist these trends are tantamount to building a dam on the path of history. On the other hand, liberal ideology exaggerates this undeniable global trend, bringing it to the point of absurd denial of such simple truths as the fact that the whole is more important than the part, and the interests of the majority are more important than the interests of the minority.
A solidary society should strive for the free connection of people - not through coercion, but through the development of new and improvement of traditional mechanisms of social integration. It should be based on generally accepted moral values, "moral majority platform" based on the Ten Commandments. (We emphasize that the principles of the Decalogue are accepted by the majority of traditional religions in our country.)
A solidary society will help humanity avoid social stratification, which divides fellow citizens into castes that do not touch each other and hate each other, as well as overcome social atomization, which disperses society into many selfish and lonely individuals.
The ideal of such a social structure is Society-Family, where all people feel like brothers and sisters.
In traditional social systems, the family society was usually headed by a paternal leader: a monarch or other national authority. However, it is necessary to take into account that in modern society the model of relations between the people and the authorities as the relations between minor children and the father cannot be acceptable. It is necessary to take into account that “the children have grown up”, and the authorities need to build relationships with the people, just as a father builds relationships with already adult, independent sons - relying on moral authority and meaningful family interests, and not on unconditional subordination and material dependence.
The real threat to Russia and the whole world is the active introduction of immoralism and moral nihilism. A solidary society must rely on traditional, time-tested ideas about good and evil that underlie the world's leading religions, and above all Christianity.
It is possible to overcome disunity and achieve solidarity between people professing different religious and philosophical systems not through the destruction of religious values and the atomization of society, but through the formation of a generally accepted moral platform based on the Ten Commandments and allowing the coexistence of leading faiths and ideological teachings.
We must counter the propaganda of immorality with loyalty and family values; the cult of profit - restraint and self-restraint; to unbridled egocentrism - love for neighbors; the spread of perversions and deviant behavior patterns - a society of a moral majority.
We insist that traditional moral coordinates are true, and modern man should not abandon them, but improve himself and society in accordance with them. At the same time, the path to the future does not lie through compulsion to high morality, but through free conscious choice, approved by the majority of fellow citizens. The motto of such a society could be the words of the Russian philosopher Nikolai Fedorov: “Live not for yourself, not for others, but with everyone and for everyone.”
The concept of human rights and freedoms in a solidary society cannot be abstracted from the concepts of good and evil. One cannot approve of the human right to do evil and the freedom to indulge in vices. We are not satisfied with the modern concept of human rights and freedoms, which not only approves, but literally elevates deviant sexual behavior to the forefront. She is obviously vicious in nature. A reasoned alternative to it is presented by “Fundamentals of the Teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on Dignity, Freedom and Human Rights.” There is no doubt that such a moral alternative looks preferable not only in the eyes of the majority of Russians, but also in the eyes of the majority of all earthlings, including ordinary Europeans and Americans.
A solidary society must be united by a common historical memory and national identity that does not divide, but unites the different peoples of the country.
The most important integrating value of modern Russian society is the memory of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. Victory Day is perceived as a source of faith in the national strength and dignity of our people. But the global significance of this date has not yet been properly understood. The year 1945 became a turning point in world history, a turn from the Era of colonial domination and enslavement of peoples to the Era of multipolarity and cooperation of different world cultures. Our Russian civilization played a decisive role in ensuring this turn (both military-political and ideological).
Understanding this greatest historical act of our ancestors gives us the key to the formation of a national-historical system of values of a solidary society.
While the Western world practiced genocide and colonial enslavement, the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union were built as a community of equal peoples. According to Ivan Ilyin, “as many small tribes as Russia received, so many did it preserve.” The study of Russian history as a state project of interethnic cooperation, which competed with the Western colonial model and won in 1945, can become an important unifying factor for the peoples of Russian civilization.
A solidary society stands for the preservation and development of national and cultural diversity, against the domination of “master nations”, against the concept of the “melting pot” and against the privileged position of minorities, for equality and harmonious interaction between nations. This concept fully fits into the Russian historical tradition and is a prototype of the future ethnocultural diversity of humanity.
Also, a solidary society must overcome ideological differences in assessments of our past, stop the “civil war of memories” and highlight the common positive milestones of all historical eras in our Fatherland (patriotic upsurge of 1612, 1812 and 1941-45; development of Siberia and the North; liberation of peasants; industrialization ; breakthrough into space, etc.) An example of such construction of a system of positive historical coordinates is also the attitude towards the Great Patriotic War, which remains a sacred symbol for all the largest ideological groups of Russian society (with the exception of radical apologists of Western civilization, both pro-German and Atlantic orientation).
The most acute problem of Russian society and other post-Soviet countries is severe social stratification. The existing economic relations do not unite, but separate people, forming antagonistic groups - ideal fuel for civil confrontation.
The strongest integrative mechanism can be common economic interests - not abstractly understood, but completely concrete and tangible. A solidary society can be united by common ownership of economic objects of national importance.
Such objects, first of all, can be the earth and its subsoil, forest, water and other natural resources (in the future, the energy of the sun, wind, tides, clean air, etc.) All these natural resources were created by God, and not by people. They belong to the people as a result of the collective action of many generations who have mastered and defended the territory of the state. It is fair that man-made objects that arose thanks to the labor and intellect of individuals should be privately owned, while natural resources should be the property of the entire people.
In the USSR, the emergence of a solidary feeling of national property was prevented by an intermediary in the person of the state. To overcome this drawback, it is possible to charge personal annuity to the account of each citizen of the country. The amount of rent should depend on the efficiency of use of natural resources, which will give rise to collective responsibility for Russia's natural resources. In order to avoid dependency, the use of national natural resource rent should be limited exclusively to the purposes of economic or humanitarian development: construction of residential or commercial facilities, education, healthcare.
Obtaining citizenship means joining a solidary society and entails automatic calculation of rent. For generally recognized services to the country (service in the army, having many children, defending a dissertation, etc.), the amount of the annuity can be increased. Crimes committed against the country and its shrines (treason, desecration of temples, monuments, etc.) mean rejection from a solidary society and can be accompanied by deprivation of citizenship with tangible economic consequences.
The political basis of a solidary society should be the expression of the will of citizens. At the same time, modern Western democracy presupposes the division of society into competing parties with separate, stable electorates, which is fraught with civil confrontation. In addition, the concentration of information flows in the hands of a narrow, near-elite layer leads to the fact that in parliamentary democracies, decisions are often made contrary to the interests and value systems of the popular majority.
Without excluding the activities of political parties as developers of alternative social development projects, a solidary society must transfer the burden of making the most important decisions to the direct expression of the will of citizens through the mechanism of national and local referendums.
The referendum system strengthens society, since every citizen directly participates in government, without delegating this function to little-known intermediaries, and also, since citizens are not divided into stable competing groups (for each issue, support groups arise anew, yesterday's rivals become allies). In addition, the expression of popular will will protect the country from external political pressure. (For example, after the adoption of a law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality among minors, deputies of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg were threatened with a ban on entry into the European Union. But if the people themselves amend their administrative or criminal code, it is hardly possible to threaten an entire people with visa barriers).
A solidary society must avoid monopolistic control of the “creative caste” over the media. A situation like that in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century, when liberal ideologists, who did not have even three percent of popular support, occupied at least half of the airwaves, is completely unacceptable. One form of demonopolization of the media could be the distribution of funding for television programs and airtime through the nationwide distribution of quotas.
When forming representative bodies of local self-government in a solidary society, the number of deputy mandates should be significantly expanded (at least 1 mandate per 1-3 thousand voters). This will allow, firstly, to avoid the formation of a small privileged deputy caste; secondly, it will bring power closer to the people, allowing every person to know their chosen one by sight; thirdly, it will provide an outlet for the civic energy of potential leaders, redirecting them from rally activity to providing for realistic zemstvo needs.
Finally, one of the effective forms of solidary self-government could be voting with budget packages at the local government level, when citizens themselves distribute part of the budget in proportion to the votes cast for certain budget projects.
Building a solidary society will help solve the following internal problems of Russia:
1. Significantly reduce material stratification and ease social tension.
2. Unite compatriots with national values, opportunities and interests; mobilize the creative energy of our people to solve long-term strategic problems.
3. Reduce interethnic tension by proposing a unifying ideology acceptable to all peoples of Russia. The introduction of the institution of national rent will prevent separatism.
4. Create an ideological alternative to the influence of Western civilization, proposing an ideology that is more democratic and fair than liberal.
The solidarity society project can also strengthen our country’s position in the international arena:
1. To provide a unifying ideology for the peoples of Russian civilization that are spiritually close to us, experiencing similar problems and sharing similar values.
2. Return our country to the status of an exporter of ideas, acquire new allies and supporters (especially among those peoples who defend an original path of development and fight to preserve cultural identity).
3. In relations with Western civilization, move from a state of defensive defense to counter-offensive. A significant number of Europeans and North Americans are dissatisfied with the costs of the modern liberal model. If Russia sets an example of overcoming these costs without encroaching on such fundamental principles for Europeans as private property, interethnic tolerance and democracy, a significant part of Western people will perceive our country not as a backward society, but as a role model.
On the territory of Italy in the Middle Ages, there were states whose elites did not feed themselves at the expense of peasants and land, but received income from trade and loan interest. Lombard, as you know, was invented in Lombardy. Florentine, Genoese and Venetian elites were qualitatively different from their counterparts in France and Spain. Their ideals were not the sword and shield (although they knew how to fight), but money and everything that brings money. In Languedoc, a knight could be as poor as a church rat, and not bother at all. In Venice, being poor was considered simply indecent.
Escape of the elite from traditional society
The states of Northern Italy prospered, not least through trade with the East. And as soon as Byzantium began to interfere with prosperity, it was immediately destroyed - in 1204, the IV Crusade allowed the Roman Empire to be so devastated that it did not regain its strength even in 250 years. But the victory led to a sad result - the Turks cut off eastern trade from Venice and Genoa. In 1453, during the defense of Constantinople from the Turks, immigrants from Genoa played a major role, but it was too late...
The “Byzantine project” for the development of Europe died (the dreams of the poet Francesco Petrarch came true!), only the “Western” remained (but it was still under development). The “long 16th century” became the period of the final crystallization of the latter. Historians began to note that the development of capitalism (which became the core of the “Western project”) in England began not without the influence of the Venetians and Genoese. Western elites would have managed just fine without capitalism, but feudalism has ceased to fulfill its functions.
Those in power could no longer calmly appropriate the results of the labor of the producing classes (Lachman). As a result of internecine wars, some of the elites of the West were mowed down. They were replaced by others who held on not to honor and land, but to trade and money. Nobody even thought about any free market. The fairy tale about the free market was invented for the ideological indoctrination of the population, since states openly patronized their merchants, entrepreneurs and moneylenders, or not their own, but lending money to kings and other rulers. Protectionism for the right people was commonplace.
The death of economic freedom
Legislative restrictions in the economic sphere under capitalism are generally commonplace. By the way, F. Braudel, for example, believed that capitalism is the death of the free market. But it couldn’t have been any other way. In Venice, even under proto-capitalism, the following happened:
“All merchant galleys were built in the Arsenal and were state property; the republic declared a monopoly on most goods and trade routes. Those ships that remained privately owned were subject to the strict restrictions imposed by the Senate. The benefits of such measures were obvious - all ships, even escort ships, were reliably certified, in the event of a storm they could be relied upon, their speed of movement and arrival times could be accurately calculated, the agencies knew exactly the amount of goods to be loaded and could prepare it in advance. Supplies for escort warships were prepared on time and in the required volume. By the end of the 14th century there were usually six trade convoys a year, each consisting of 500 ships, sometimes more. Everyone walked along a certain route and at a certain time. Most of the ships were state-owned; only representatives of noble families who won the auction were allowed to command them. Every merchant and every captain, no matter owner or tenant, strictly complied with the requirements of the Senate and was obliged to maintain the “honor of St. Mark”(Norwich D. "History of the Venetian Republic").
The decisive step towards capitalism had been taken. The state began to protect purely private interests. The First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654) was born out of purely trade rivalry and restrictions imposed by the Dutch. The Second, Third and Fourth also had similar reasons. The Anglo-French War (1627-1629) happened primarily because of France’s desire to have a powerful fleet, and this did not fit into the interests of the British, who by that time were fighting for trade hegemony with the Netherlands. What about the principles of free trade and the market? Nobody cared!
If you carefully examine the structure of modern TNCs, you suddenly discover that a slightly embellished principle of vassalage reigns here. Warm greetings to feudalism!
Capitalism as a hallucination
And suddenly in the 20th century it was discovered that capitalism does not exist and never existed.
In the Encyclopedia Britannica we read: “Capitalism (market economy, free enterprise) is the economic system dominant in the Western world after the collapse of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned, and production and distribution occur under the influence of market mechanisms.”.
Where is the “market economy” and “free enterprise” (“Apple” is quietly suing Samsung Electronics in the USA)? Where “production and distribution occur under the influence of market mechanisms” (sanctions against Russia are not only of a political nature, but also of an economic nature, first and foremost!)?
Capitalism, it turns out, is not a system at all, but a kind of ideological and economic haze thrown over reality. And liberalism provides ideological and cultural cover for capitalism.
However, everything comes and goes. Capitalism survived only by exploiting people’s craving for the “gift” (the free giving of their strength, time and labor for the sake of some goal), a craving inherited from traditional, that is, normal, in the literal sense, society. When he replaced the “gift” with “purchase and sale” relations, the development was completed (according to A. Panarin).
In other words, “The genie of capitalism has been covered with a copper basin”. Under these conditions, the elite of the modern world - the globetrotters - have no choice but to throw off the veils and try to become like the elites of antiquity, to introduce an analogue of the caste system, where belonging to the highest caste also confirms intellectual superiority over the lower ones. Globetrotters cannot do anything else but create a new illusion.
All resources have been spent on this, especially in the media. Along the way, there is a destruction of mass education and a struggle with countries that have national elites that can lay claim to their piece of the global “pie.” The world has found itself at a certain transition point.
In reality, capitalism is a perversion of nature, a socio-economic hallucination. He - "that which cannot be". And this system was born from another, which in itself was an absolutely unique and not at all obligatory moment in human history. Western European feudalism is not repeated anywhere else, unless it has an analogue in early Zhou China (according to the historian L. S. Vasiliev).
Barbarians and bourgeois
The situation developed in such a way that in Western Europe, fairly small warlike barbarian tribes subjugated the population and territories, which became extremely difficult to control. Feudalism arose as a reaction to the current state of affairs. Vasiliev writes: “The only way out of this kind of situation was the creation of a feudal-appanage socio-political system, within the framework of which each of the appanage rulers related or close to the ruler of the state actually turned out to be, although dependent on the ghostly center, but practically an independent titled hereditary owner of his inheritance.”.
It was among these “independent owners” that the socio-psychological foundations of the transition to capitalism began to form. Atomization as a sign of wealth, independence as a sign of success and at the same time outright distrust of the state machine - these principles contributed to the genesis of both liberalism and capitalism. It is far from accidental that the first proto-bourgeois states began to emerge in Italy and Provence. After all, it was there that the discovery was made that it was not so much the art of war that helped to defend one’s power and independence, but rather money, trade and credit. The Renaissance also came to Europe from Italy. The culture of the Renaissance did not arise spontaneously, it became an instrument for introducing bourgeois social principles into people's heads. And the appeal to Antiquity is also natural: Ancient Greece gave birth to the ideal of the “man-ship” (according to M.K. Petrov) - a person atomized and independent for his own sake.
I.L. Solonevich gave a great insight into the soul of Europe and European capitalism: “In German villages they don’t swim in rivers and ponds, don’t sing, don’t dance in circles, and are not at all interested in good neighborly relations. Each courtyard is a small feudal castle, fenced off from everything else. And the owner of this castle is Pfenig - merciless, all-powerful, all-consuming Pfenig".
And what did it turn out to be? The 1917 revolution in Russia did not happen just like that. Capitalism destroys our nature and our culture. He is killing the monarchy. For he splits society into atoms, simultaneously gluing these atoms into unnatural groups. Russia, which did not know European nationalism, received it. Russia, which was not aware of the rights of various minorities - rights for the sake of which the aspirations and lives of the majority should be ruined - also received this problem.
Formations and "isms"
Our huge misfortune is the fixation on the socio-formational approach to history, which, unfortunately, is practiced not only by the “left”, but also by the “right”. It’s time to move away from this if we want to revive the normal existence of Russia and normal governance and normal power, that is, the monarchy.
In the history of mankind, there have always been only two types of society (no matter what “isms” you attribute to them): solidary and competitive. If we operate in terms of biology, then the second was built on the struggle of species for existence (“the weak is doomed”), and the first on symbiosis. In nature, symbiosis, by the way, occurs much more often than struggle. At the same time, we must not forget that in its pure form, none of the types is possible; they intersect with each other.
So, capitalism is the delirium of a decaying competitive society, the highest degree of its disintegration (with “money fetishism” and loss of humanity). A competitive society considers people to be cogs in the system. Whatever you want, socialism is the other side of capitalism. In capitalism the system “property - power” works, in socialism - “power - property”. Why do many people now find socialism more attractive than capitalism? For only one reason: socialism is capitalism with the dominance of state ownership, where the elite assigns statuses. Roughly speaking, the material benefits of the regional committee secretary are higher than the same benefits due to the city committee secretary.
Capitalism assumes that someone who has a lot of money has less influence on running a country than someone who has a lot of money.
Competition in a socialist society is not reduced. It has simply been transferred to another sphere. Moreover, paternalism towards workers is necessary. Otherwise, how, may I, assign statuses?
Godlessness under socialism is the most important attribute. You cannot allow a person to take his eyes off the trough (that is, material wealth) and turn his eyes to the sky. Space exploration has clearly shown this. The heroism of space exploration has been replaced by practicality in the use of space. By the way, this curiously affected the awarding of the title “Hero of the Soviet Union” to the cosmonauts. They began to calculate how many flights to assign, etc. Which was a profanation of the ideas of Korolev and Tsiolkovsky.
Godlessness grew more slowly under capitalism than under socialism. It is explainable. Private property reigns supreme. Private life dominates. Godlessness spreads at everyday levels. The state is only pushing him. No more effort is required. Atomization is higher than under socialism. And godlessness comes through the fragmentation of religious society into thousands of sects. There cannot be so many paths on the path to God.
The consumer is important in capitalism. The one who strives for the temple will not skip into the store.
Solidarity society and monarchy
A solidary society, unlike capitalism, is not a utopia or an idiot's dream. A solidary society is always mono-religious, allowing free, but not sectarian, religious existence within limited limits.
Monarchy is an indispensable condition for the existence of a solidary society. The monarch is the highest arbiter between classes. And this shows that a solidary society without classes is a myth and nothing more.
The monarch owns the property of the country's subsoil, some of the land. And, of course, the treasury should own the leading military production facilities.
Oil, which I consider the curse of Russia, has completely helped the development of Norway, Oman and Saudi Arabia. The state receives income from oil and gas in Norway (not all of it, but definitely the lion's share) and with it provides one of the highest standards of living. Norway is still a fake monarchy. But it is what it is.
Citizens of the Sultanate of Oman also have excellent standards of living. The Sultan, owning oil production, distributes income among his subjects, which allows them, for example, to study for a fee at Oxford or Cambridge. Not a single notorious “democracy” provides this. Even Norway (either a kingdom or a “democracy”). You can also take the example of Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi played the role of a monarch (it doesn’t matter what the monarch is called. It’s important whether he exists or not).
A solidary society cannot but be monarchically governed. If you want justice in Russia, then first return the Autocracy. A solidary society (a society of duty and honor) is the only possibility for Russia to survive in the modern world. But we still need to mature for it. Being psychologically unprepared and, especially, a forced transition will not yield anything. A solidary society does not come through revolution. She is contraindicated for him.
Many residents of our region do not know that a “solidarity society” has been built in the Belgorod region for four years now. And some of those who heard about it misunderstood the idea or did not approve of it at all.
First Deputy Governor of the region Valery Sergachev reported about this at a meeting of the small government.
According to Valery Sergachev, They began to build a “solidarity society” in the Belgorod region almost four years ago, and it’s time to take stock. And they showed that the methodology for implementing the strategy, developed in 2011, “no longer meets the challenges of our time”.
According to the research data cited by the vice-governor in his report, the local population is still not sufficiently informed about the essence of a solidary society. Most residents of the region doubt that it can be built at all.
And this means that we never managed to achieve the assimilation of this idea by Belgorod residents,” concludes Valery Sergachev.
In particular, only 40.6% of respondents had heard something about the idea of “building it.” And only 37.43% of respondents from those who heard it believe that the idea is being implemented successfully. All others rated the implementation process negatively or found it difficult to express their opinion.
According to the speaker, these data “do not give rise to optimistic conclusions.”
The time has come to seriously, technologically competently take on the implementation of the Strategy, says Valery Sergachev.
But the biggest flaw, according to the speaker, was that the Belgorod authorities “we have not yet achieved understanding among the population of the region what a solidary society is”.
Some think of it as a society “united by common values and the mutual responsibility of its citizens.” Others understand a solidary society as “a society without large stratification in terms of income and property.” Still others interpret it as a society with high spirituality. The fourth common definition is a society that includes people of the same nationality.
As it turns out, none of these definitions fully corresponds to the true understanding. That is why, as the speaker said, at the end of last year a unified definition of the concept of “solidary society” was sent to members of the regional government. It sounds like this: “A solidary society is a society in which the norm of relations between people is mutual trust and responsibility, the desire to solve everyday problems in a neighborly (kind) way, and the willingness to voluntarily and selflessly support each other in difficult life situations.”
According to the plan of the regional authorities, by 2025 Belgorod residents will live in a solidarity society.
Valery Sergachev asked the participants of the small government meeting to be guided by this definition when working with the population, “to use it at mass events.” And as a short slogan he suggested using the phrase “Creating together for the benefit of everyone.”
The speaker did not share the methods by which Belgorod residents will be taught to “voluntarily and selflessly support in difficult situations.” But Valery Sergachev said that in the coming year the population will be taught to “solidarize” according to the action plan approved in December 2014. It was sent to all heads of administrations, who were given personal responsibility for the quality of its implementation. According to Sergachev, the plan can be expanded and adjusted to take into account new problems and new realities, and “additional input will be sent to everyone as needed.” Particular attention will be paid to information work with people.
Next, the Belgorod authorities will begin preparing a large regional plan for the period from 2016 to 2020 to “solidarize” the population and teach them to “kindly” solve problems and “voluntarily and selflessly” participate in solving problems. This work will begin in May and will take place in parallel with the election campaign.
By the way, the strategy for building a “solidarity society” is designed until 2025. And the Belgorod authorities expect that by this time we will all be living in it.
Maria Litvinova, photo by Vladimir Kornev.
We are publishing the text of Valery Sergachev’s report on the implementation of the strategy “Formation of a regional solidary society.”
About the implementation mechanism
Strategies “Formation of a regional solidarity society”
for 2011-2015" in municipal districts and urban districts of the Belgorod region for the period 2015
1. (Slide 1) For the fourth year now, the Strategy “Formation of a regional solidarity society” for 2011-2025 has been implemented in the Belgorod region. The time has come to sum up some results and give an objective assessment of the work we are doing in this direction.
2. (Slide 2) The methodology for implementing the Strategy, developed in 2011, today no longer meets the challenges of our time. Therefore, last year, for the development of a new methodology for implementing the Strategy for the period 2015-2020, the Regional Government allocated a grant, within the framework of which we received not only sociological data on the progress of the Strategy implementation, but also a number of practical recommendations and technology for implementing the Strategy for the coming year. The main thing in this approach is complexity.
3. (Slide 3) The study showed: at present, the problem of insufficient awareness of the population about the essence of a solidary society remains. The majority of the population doubts that it can be built at all. This means that we were never able to achieve the assimilation of this idea by Belgorod residents.
Only 40.6% of respondents heard about the implementation of the Strategy “Formation of a solidary society” in the Belgorod region.
(Slide 4) Of those who have heard about the Strategy, only 37.43% believe that it is being implemented successfully (13.05% are convinced that it is being implemented quite successfully, and 24.38% are mostly successful). The remaining respondents assessed the implementation process more or less negatively, or found it difficult to answer the question.
(Slide 5) The essence of a solidary society is still represented by a minority of the population (37.30%).
And these data do not give rise to optimistic conclusions.
4. Today there must be an understanding that in modern conditions, the Strategy’s activities should become for the population of the region a kind of consolidating element, forming a sense of collective responsibility for the fate of their small Motherland.
The time has come to seriously, technologically competently take on the implementation of the Strategy.
5. (Slide 6) The biggest flaw in the implementation of the Strategy is that we still have not achieved an understanding among the population of the region of what a solidary society is.
Among those who have an idea of a solidary society, 47.18% are convinced that this is a society united by common values and the mutual responsibility of its citizens; for 19.57% of respondents – a society without much stratification in terms of income and property; for 13.94% – a society with high spirituality; 9.12% view it as a society that includes people of the same nationality.
We must pay close attention to this issue. At the end of last year, a single definition of the concept of “solidary society” was sent to all of you:
“A solidary society is a society in which the norm of relations between people is mutual trust and responsibility, the desire to solve everyday problems in a neighborly (kind) way, and the willingness to voluntarily and selflessly support each other in difficult life situations.”
I ask you to be guided in your work with the population by this definition, use it at public events, use it as a developed multiple slogan “Create together for the benefit of everyone.”
6. (Slide 7) Municipal districts and urban districts will have a large block of work this year; they will become the most active participants in the process of building a solidary society. Let me remind you that responsibility for the quality of implementation of the Strategy in the territories lies personally with each head of administration.
Today, an action plan for 2015 has been developed and sent to municipalities, regulating the activities of districts and city districts on organizational and control issues. It was approved by order of the Regional Governor No. 627-r dated December 16, 2014. I ask you to follow this plan.
At the same time, I would like to emphasize that the plan can be expanded and adjusted as it is implemented, taking into account emerging problems and new realities. Additional introductions will be sent to everyone as needed.
To perform the function of control and resolve organizational issues related to the implementation of the Strategy, responsible persons have already been appointed in the administrations of municipal districts and city districts; these people should primarily be maximally exempt from other activities in the administrations of municipalities.
The first training will be held for responsible persons on February 25 at the Institute of Regional Personnel Policy; in the future, the department of internal and personnel policy of the region will periodically gather them for seminars and consultations.
At the end of January, a request was sent to municipalities to prepare a preliminary version of work plans for the implementation of the Strategy for 2015. Draft plans had to be submitted by February 13.
Please note that they must be built in accordance with the System of Actions of the Strategy specified in its content, and include all 11 blocks. At the same time, your current activities can be included in the draft plan, but such activities must be supplemented ideologically.
7. After a preliminary examination of draft plans and their adjustments, it is necessary to organize a broad discussion of the plan’s activities among the population. This should be a discussion of both the general theme of a solidary society and issues related to the implementation of specific activities that contribute to its formation. I ask you to work through the issue with public chambers and public organizations, while positively perceiving the most daring initiatives of the socially active population and supplementing your draft plans with them.
For our part, we are organizing public discussion through the “People's Expertise” project.
This work must be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2015. From the second quarter, the implementation of the municipal plans developed by you begins, and on our part, serious monitoring of their implementation begins.
8. When implementing the Strategy, the most important component is its information support. Let me remind you that there is a separate information resource dedicated to the implementation of the Strategy - belsolidarnost.ru, the official magazine “Belgorod Solidarity Society” is published. At the end of December, we sent a request for news materials for the site. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that a number of municipalities have not yet become involved in this work - these are Belgorod, Alekseevsky, Belgorodsky, Veidelevsky, Grayvoronsky, Ivnyansky, Krasnensky, Prokhorovsky, Chernyansky, Yakovlevsky districts. The most active participants in the process are Borisovsky, Valuysky, Volokonovsky, Krasnogvardeysky, Krasnoyaruzhsky, Shebekinsky districts and Stary Oskolsky urban district.
9. (Slide 8) Having completed the organizational stage with municipal districts and urban districts, we will move on to preparing a large regional plan for the period from 2016 to 2020. And here not only government bodies at all levels, but also the Public Chamber, the Duma, trade unions, and public organizations should get involved in active work.
This work will begin in May and will take place in parallel with the election campaign.
